3.1
This chapter explores the extent of support for the provisions of the bill and examines specific concerns raised by participants during the inquiry.
General views on the bill
3.2
There was broad stakeholder support for the bill, which would give effect to recommendations arising from the 2016–17 impact review and the 2019 Provider Category Standards (PCS) review, as well as a number of provisions designed to improve regulation of the higher education sector. As articulated by the University of New England, the bill would:
… give clarity regarding a range of measures that have arisen from recent recommendations and decisions, and enhance the operation of regulation in the Australian higher education sector.
3.3
Support for the impact review findings included agreement with the recommendation to reframe the Threshold Standards as a single unified framework, rather than the four distinct types of standards currently specified in the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (the TEQSA Act). The Innovative Research Universities, along with other submitters, noted this change would improve the clarity of the Threshold Standards, making them easier for higher education providers, students and other stakeholders to use.
3.4
Some universities highlighted the largely facilitative nature of the bill, noting the most significant changes would arise from the modified Threshold Standards, which would come into effect on the same date as the relevant provisions of the bill.
3.5
The facilitative nature of the bill was reflected in the number of submissions that expressed general agreement with the findings of the PCS review and the subsequent changes proposed by the Higher Education Standards Panel (HESP). There was also recognition of the extensive stakeholder engagement that underpinned these activities. For example, in conveying its support, the University of Canberra referred to the 'comprehensive consultation undertaken around [the] review of the Provider Category Standards'.
3.6
The Department of Education, Skills and Employment (the department) also emphasised the extent of consultations undertaken by the PCS review and the HESP, and observed there was strong sector support for 'both the broad direction of the proposed changes … and their expression in the draft standards'.
3.7
Support for the proposed changes included agreement with the proposal to reduce the number of provider categories from six to four, with some universities noting the new categories would be simpler and allow greater differentiation between provider types.
3.8
There was strong support for the introduction of research quality benchmarks, which were recognised by many submitters as a means of promoting and safeguarding the quality of Australian universities. For example, Universities Australia argued the benchmarks would 'reinforce the drivers of quality and excellence that underpin the success of the Australian university system'.
3.9
Support was also expressed for the proposal to strengthen industry engagement, civic leadership, and community engagement requirements for higher education providers.
3.10
While the proposed changes to the Threshold Standards were broadly endorsed, a number of universities raised concerns about the name of the proposed University College provider category. Different views were also expressed in relation to how TEQSA should assess research quality, with some submitters wanting more detail in the bill itself. Other submitters highlighted the bill’s interaction with broader changes to university funding.
3.11
Many stakeholders also encouraged ongoing consultation with the sector as the changes to the Threshold Standards are implemented. This was acknowledged by Professor Nicholas Saunders, Chief Commissioner, TEQSA, who stated that:
… collaboration has been a hallmark of our approach, and this will be no different. We will consult extensively and collaborate to make sure that we have the very best system in place that we can put in place.
3.12
There was support for other provisions of the bill, including the proposed change to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 relating to Indigenous student assistance grants, as well as other amendments to the TEQSA Act that would:
give TEQSA the ability to take control of student records in the event a provider ceased operation;
include undergraduate certificates as a higher education award type;
allow TEQSA to extend a provider’s registration or course accreditation more than once;
allow a merit review of a decision by TEQSA not to change a provider’s category; and
protect the word 'university' in Australian internet domain names.
3.13
Some submitters raised concerns about particular aspects of these changes, including the broad definition of student records and potential privacy implications of the related provisions and the scope and wording of the amendment relating to use of the term 'university' in domain names.
3.14
Many submitters who raised concerns or recommended changes to the bill did not object to its passage; some even expressed explicit support for the bill and its aims. For example, Western Sydney University reflected that:
The University has offered some comments but overall feels the intent of the legislation remains strong and focusses on maintaining a high-quality Australian higher education sector.
3.15
Other stakeholders, including the Innovative Research Universities, the University of Melbourne, Western Sydney University and the University of Canberra were unequivocal in recommending that the Senate pass the bill.
Comment on specific aspects of the bill
Simplifying the provider category standards
3.16
Submitters were generally positive about the streamlined provider categories. For example, the University of Melbourne indicated the new categories would better reflect the make-up of Australia’s higher education sector and be easier to understand.
3.17
Stakeholders also acknowledged the extensive consultation process that informed the development of the new provider category standards. This included submissions to the PCS review and the HESP, as well as face-to-face meetings, a stakeholder forum, workshops and webcasts.
3.18
The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium questioned whether the loss of the previous 'Australian University of Specialisation' category and the introduction of new benchmarks would potentially make it more difficult to establish an Indigenous university in the future:
I think in discussions that we have had around the sector around this question it hasn't been clear that that pathway is still as clear as it was with the current standards.
3.19
However, it was also noted that the PCS review recommended including universities with a specialised focus in the proposed Australian University category, with course offering and research requirements limited to one or two broad fields of education. The draft provider category standards also set out the proposed approach to allow universities with a specialised focus to be classified as Australian Universities.
3.20
The majority of stakeholder concerns about the standards related to the proposed University College category. While not objecting to the creation of the category itself, a significant number of organisations raised concerns about its name, noting that the PCS review had originally proposed the title 'National Institute of Higher Education'.
3.21
These concerns generally centred around the potential for the term University College to confuse or mislead students, employers and the general public—particularly as the term is currently used to describe on-campus residential accommodation, or small educational associations that are associated with universities. To this end, the Queensland University of Technology suggested reverting to the title proposed by the PCS review, while other submitters proposed alternative titles, such as 'Higher Education College' or 'College of Higher Education'.
3.22
The department explained that adoption of the name 'University College' responded to the concerns of some stakeholders at the loss of the 'Australian University College' category. It emphasised that this category was always intended to be a transitional category for providers seeking eventual registration as an Australian University—but that technical issues had limited its uptake.
3.23
A similar view was expressed by Independent Higher Education Australia, which supported the name 'University College', noting it was an internationally recognised term and an existing category that had been in use since 2011.
3.24
Universities Australia suggested that extending the use of the word 'university' to institutions without a research capability—or an affiliation to a university with a research capability—risked diminishing the reputation of Australia’s higher education sector. This concern was shared by the National Tertiary Education Union, which argued:
The term university should be used to denote that a higher education provider has met certain threshold standards ... We are concerned that the reputation of Australia’s world class universities could be undermined by either international students or others not having their expectations met on the understanding they were dealing with an organisation they believed had university status.
3.25
In response, the department emphasised the protections for the term 'university', including that providers wanting to use the University College category 'will need to both meet the standards set by TEQSA … and … use the term 'university college' consistently and together'.
3.26
Despite its stated concerns, Universities Australia also referred to these protections as the basis of its support for the bill:
… as the government has made a policy decision to implement the university college category, the bill under consideration provides important protections on the use of the word 'university', and that is important. On this basis, Universities Australia supports the bill.
3.27
The protections were also supported by Independent Higher Education Australia as a means of protecting 'the status and transparency of both the University College and Australian University categories'.
Clarifying research requirements for universities
3.28
Many submitters supported the introduction of research quality benchmarks, which would serve to protect the reputation of Australia’s university sector. For example, Universities Australia argued that the provision:
… further affirms the vital role of universities in undertaking research that benefits the Australian community. Instituting these benchmarks reinforces the drivers of quality and excellence that underpin the success of the Australian university system.
3.29
While supportive, some stakeholders noted a lack of detail about the way in which the benchmarks will be assessed, including the measures to be used and how they will be applied. The University of Western Australia asserted:
First, a range of indicators have been suggested but the report states that the measures to be used by TEQSA are those that it deems acceptable. While the final report makes suggestions, it does not clearly determine which will be used and the reasons for their relevance or appropriateness. Second, there is not any distinction or clarification regarding the types of research that would be applicable in terms of their inclusion into the measurement of research.
3.30
In the absence of detail, the University of Southern Queensland cautioned that simplistic definitions of quality could drive a narrow set of behaviours across the sector. Similarly, the University of Canberra highlighted the need for diversity in the sector and urged TEQSA to maintain a balanced view of differing university missions as it implemented the new standards.
3.31
Some universities suggested that the clarity of the research quality provisions could be improved. For example, while recommending the Senate pass the provisions, the Australian Catholic University also proposed a set of guiding principles, which it argued should be reflected in the Threshold Standards.
3.32
Other stakeholders called for the benchmarks to be defined in legislation. Western Sydney University suggested it would be useful to define research quality within the bill in order to '… better guide TEQSA and providers in assessing this benchmark'. Similarly, the Queensland University of Technology asserted that the means and standards for determining research quality should be decided by Parliament, rather than being delegated to Ministers.
3.33
This approach was opposed by Professor Duncan Bentley, Vice Chancellor and President, Federation University Australia, who warned:
The danger of putting everything into legislation, which is a popular approach when people are looking at law, is that it becomes much more rigid, much harder to change, and we are going to have to adapt and change to the changing world of research over the next 20 years …
3.34
Maintaining the current balance between primary and delegated legislation was also preferred by the department, which noted that bringing elements of regulation into the bill would not alter the standard being set but would 'reduce capacity over time to manage within that framework'.
3.35
Innovative Research Universities also acknowledged that the disallowance process provided a useful mechanism for scrutiny of any instrument developed by TEQSA to assess research quality. However, it also noted that TEQSA does not require an instrument to be made in order to make decisions regarding research quality.
3.36
Concern about the level of detail in the bill was not universal. For example, the University of Melbourne observed that while the detail of the benchmark is not provided in the bill, 'the basic principle of setting benchmarks for research quality is sound'.
3.37
Notwithstanding their individual views on the level of detail in the bill, a number of submitters underscored the importance of sector engagement to successful implementation of the provisions. For example, the University of Western Australia highlighted the need for 'an agreed sector wide measurement model' to ensure fair and transparent assessments.
3.38
The Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN) suggested that a consultation or review mechanism should apply to TEQSA’s development process—in line with existing requirements for the Threshold Standards:
ATN appreciates that the quality of research is a new requirement and it is potentially not possible to codify a definition within the Standards and that the specific detail must sit outside of the Standards. However, to aid TEQSA and the Minister in making a definition that is appropriate and fit‑for‑purpose, we suggest there be a mechanism for review or consultation of the quality of research matters.
3.39
In a similar vein, the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering raised concerns about TEQSA having sole responsibility for determining matters of research quality, without necessarily requiring it to be transparent when developing its approach to assessments.
3.40
While the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium indicated it was not concerned about TEQSA making determinations under the research provision, it stressed the need for Indigenous representation in making those decisions.
3.41
The desire of stakeholders to be involved in implementation of the research requirements was also reflected in the department’s submission, which noted that several universities had expressed interested in working with TEQSA to develop guidance on how the research benchmarks will be assessed.
3.42
Some submitters highlighted the importance of the HESP in any consultation process. Universities Australia went further and argued that the HESP, rather than TEQSA, should be responsible for determining matters relating to research quality—given the HESP’s expertise and its role in developing the Threshold Standards.
3.43
Despite these concerns, Universities Australia expressed confidence in the government’s intention to work with the sector:
We note that many of our members have called for additional consultation on how the new research benchmarks will work, and we think this is important. These matters are outside the direct changes made by the bill and we are confident the government will continue to work constructively with the sector on these matters.
3.44
The commitment to ongoing consultation was reinforced by
Professor Nicholas Saunders, Chief Commissioner, TEQSA:
We agree with many of the submissions that emphasise the need for TEQSA to engage in consultation about any research thresholds or research measurements. We agree with that. We obviously do need to consult and we will be consulting.
3.45
TEQSA also assured the committee it would consult with the HESP.
Research quality assessment frameworks
3.46
Views were mixed about the use of existing assessment frameworks such as Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) and Engagement and Impact (EI).
3.47
For example, use of the ERA was strongly supported by Western Sydney University, which took the view that the bill should refer explicitly to the ERA. It also suggested that where 'ERA benchmarks are not available, TEQSA should have regard to the type of factors intrinsic to ERA'.
3.48
Conversely, Bond University argued for a more nuanced approach to assessment and cautioned against undue weight being given to certain metrics simply because they are readily available.
3.49
The National Tertiary Education Union suggested that a broader range of indicators would need to be considered:
… when you're trying to measure or come up with some determinant of the quality of research, there need to be a variety of measures and factors taken into account that are both qualitative and quantitative in nature.
3.50
While supporting the use of established mechanisms, Universities Australia reminded the committee of the PCS review report suggestion that other metrics and criteria would be needed to supplement ERA scores and agreed that 'using only ERA in all cases would be a bit limiting'.
3.51
This was an issue highlighted by Dr Leanne Holt, Chair, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium, who argued for flexibility in TEQSA’s approach in order to allow for consideration of global benchmarks for Indigenous research.
3.52
In response, Professor Nicholas Saunders, Chief Commissioner, TEQSA, stated it would be 'absolutely essential' to have measures beyond the ERA, given TEQSA would be required to make judgements about research of national standing, which would require 'using approaches, metrics, indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, that sit outside the ERA processes'. In addition, Professor Saunders noted that TEQSA would also need to assess the performance of institutions that would not have participated in the ERA.
3.53
Other stakeholders raised concerns about the ERA itself, primarily in relation to its ability to assess the quality of humanities and social science (HASS) research. For example, the University of Southern Queensland cautioned that:
As a comparative measure, ERA is acceptable for highlighting the differences in research performance between universities. However, it is not effective in measuring overall research quality owing to the different assessment regimes for different disciplines.
3.54
The difference in outcomes between science and HASS disciplines was noted by the National Tertiary Education Union, which also argued that universities were able to manipulate their ERA results.
3.55
Professor Duncan Bentley, Vice Chancellor and President, Federation University Australia, disputed the proposition that gaming the ERA was a fundamental issue. However, he acknowledged the difference in HASS outcomes and suggested it was a result of the methodology used to assess research in these fields. This view was also supported by the Regional Universities Network:
I think … the way the HASS disciplines… are assessed … probably needs a review, given that is by peer review. Consistently the HASS disciplines in general have rated lower in ERA than the STEM disciplines, which are assessed via citations. I think with the STEM disciplines it's a robust method. You could say it can be compared to world standard, whereas I think the assessment for the HASS disciplines is less clear.
3.56
Some submitters pointed to the current Australian Research Council (ARC) review of the ERA and EI and suggested the results should be used to inform TEQSA’s development of research benchmarks. Conversely, the Group of Eight argued that the ARC should consider TEQSA’s potential use of the ERA as part of its review.
3.57
In response, Professor Nicholas Saunders, Chief Commissioner, TEQSA, acknowledged the ERA review and underlined its value in informing TEQSA’s approach. Professor Saunders also stated his commitment to ensuring 'the outcomes of a research evaluation are fair to all disciplines and have minimal chance of being gamed'.
Ability of universities to meet the research benchmarks
3.58
Overall, there was general support for the view that all public Australian universities would be able to meet the research benchmarks. For example, Universities Australia indicated it had no concerns about its members:
As you will appreciate, we have had many conversations with members about whether they have concerns about their status under this bill. At no point through the now quite lengthy process that this set of recommendations from Peter Coaldrake's have been under consideration have universities been concerned about qualifying.
3.59
However, analysis by the Group of Eight found that for institutions currently registered in the Australian University category:
three would be under the 30 per cent level for the PCS standards up to 2030;
a further two would be under the 50 per cent level for 2030 PCS standards; and
a further four may be considered ‘at risk’ (sitting between
50 and 60 per cent).
3.60
This aligned with the department’s analysis, which suggested that while all public Australian universities would meet the initial 30 per cent level, some smaller private universities may struggle if assessed on ERA ratings alone. For this reason, it noted that TEQSA would need to consider alternative data sources for these institutions. TEQSA also pointed out that these organisations would have five years to develop their performance.
3.61
In addition to the transitional provisions in the new Threshold Standards—which would provide five years for universities to meet the 30 per cent benchmark and 10 years to meet the 50 per cent benchmark—the department stated there would also be scope for a grace period for remedial action prior to sanctions being warranted.
3.62
The department further advised the committee that it expected TEQSA’s approach would recognise the potential impact of external factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic:
We don't want longstanding well-performing institutions affected by short-term disruptions to their operations that have an ongoing effect on their standing in the sector … I expect that TEQSA would take exactly that sort of approach on a provider-by-provider basis should there be an issue with the provider meeting the standard in a particular period of time because of disruption to their income flows or other activities.
3.63
Some submitters raised concerns about the potential unintended consequences that could arise from TEQSA’s assessments of research quality. For example, the National Tertiary Education Union cautioned that universities could try to manipulate the system by eliminating 'weak' areas of research:
… the threat is that, in order to shore up their position, a number of universities will actually try to rearrange the way they operate and effectively within the institution part become teaching only.
3.64
The University of Canberra also expressed concerns for younger or smaller universities that may not have the resources to meet the required benchmarks. It argued this could lead to universities resourcing particular areas of teaching to the detriment of others (a 'two-tier' system), or ceasing areas of teaching where they lack the resources to meet research benchmarks.
3.65
However, the Hon Dan Tehan MP, Minister for Education, contended that as the research benchmarks focused on quality rather than quantity, they would not inherently disadvantage smaller institutions. In particular, he highlighted the 'research of national standing' benchmark, which would ensure that smaller research programs, focused on community and national needs, would be acknowledged, respected and valued.
3.66
Professor Nicholas Saunders, Chief Commissioner, TEQSA, also assured the committee that TEQSA would seek to minimise the risk of perverse outcomes:
… through consultation and having an approach of putting in place some form of expert panel to give us oversight and guidance, that any additional measures that we were to introduce would in fact be run past peer review and run past experts in the field of research evaluation to ensure that those sorts of outcomes would be minimised.
Interaction with broader changes to university research funding
3.67
Some submissions made reference to the additional $1 billion investment in the Research Support Program provided in the 2020–21 Budget. In welcoming the additional funding, the University of Melbourne observed that:
This is a major one-off funding intervention that will help safeguard Australia’s research system from the impact of the pandemic in the short term. The Government is to be commended for this.
3.68
However, these submissions also highlighted the need for a longer-term solution, particularly in the wake of the changes introduced under the Job‑ready Graduates Package, with the Group of Eight asking the committee to note 'the need for research reform and supporting research excellence at scale that forms part of the proper framework in which the provider category standards sit'.
3.69
Charles Sturt University stated sufficient transition time would be needed and that some providers might struggle to meet research quality benchmarks without structural adjustment funding. It also suggested there was a need to redistribute research funding, arguing that current policy settings and metrics were skewed towards large metropolitan universities.
3.70
In terms of transition time, the department highlighted the proposed five and ten year transition periods before universities would need to demonstrate compliance with the new benchmarks. It also pointed to the flexibility of TEQSA’s approach to regulatory action:
As with any element of the Threshold Standards, if TEQSA were to find that a provider was unable to demonstrate compliance with research quality benchmark, any regulatory action would also include scope for remedial action and a period of grace within which to improve performance before any regulatory sanction might be warranted.
3.71
The Regional Universities Network (RUN) also noted the additional support being provided for regional universities via the $49 million regional research fund under the Job-ready Graduates Package, as well as the additional $1 billion in the Research Support Program. Its early estimates showed:
… there should be around an additional $30 million coming to RUN university members through that allocation. I think those are important funding support mechanisms that will assist regional universities to continue to increase their progress in this respect.
Transferring student records
3.72
There was general support for the intent of this provision, which allows TEQSA to assume control of student records in the event a provider ceases operation and facilitates the transfer of student records between providers when a student changes providers. However, a number of universities raised concerns with proposed section 197AC, which would facilitate the transfer of student records from one entity to another where a student changed providers. The transfer of records could be triggered by a request from the student or another higher education provider.
3.73
Concerns centred on the breadth of the proposed definition of 'higher education student records' and potential contravention of the Privacy Act 1988. Multiple submitters expressed concern about the proposed definition of higher education student records, which refers to:
… a document, or an object, in any form (including any electronic form) that is held by the entity because of the document’s or object’s connection with a person who is or was enrolled in an accredited course provided by the entity.
3.74
The Australian Technology Network of Universities cautioned that the proposed definition would potentially include personal information that would not be needed by the new provider to carry out its duties. This view was supported by Edith Cowan University, which also noted the provision could place an undue burden on institutions given the records 'may be held in multiple systems, may be confidential or sensitive, and most are of limited relevance to the receiving institution'. The Australian Catholic University also noted the potential for this provision to create a 'significant and unnecessary additional workload', particularly as students can apply to more than one alternative institution when seeking to transfer.
3.75
As an alternative approach, the Australian Technology Network of Universities suggested the definition of 'higher education student records' could be amended to refer to (or match) the definition of 'higher education certification documentation' outlined in the Threshold Standards, which would limit the definition to items relevant to enrolment at a new institution. This approach was also supported by Swinburne University.
3.76
The Australian Catholic University contended there would be privacy concerns in allowing providers to request student records without their knowledge or authorisation. It argued for the bill to be revised to align with the Privacy Act 1988, stating the current provision:
… is in direct contravention of the Privacy Act 1988. There is no proposed carve-out in the Bill for the requesting entity to request this personal information because it is required, or authorised by/under an Australian law or a court/tribunal order (a specific carve out in the Privacy Act 1988).
3.77
For this reason, some submitters argued that consideration should be given to requiring students to authorise the transfer of records, while others contended that students should have sole responsibility for providing their new institution with the information required for enrolment.
Expanding the definition of a higher education award to include undergraduate certificates
3.78
There was support for including undergraduate certificates in the definition of a higher education award.
3.79
However, concerns were raised by the National Tertiary Education Union about the impact of this provision on the nature and funding of higher education, citing concerns that it could become:
… the first step to further deregulation and greater competition and contestability of funding within higher education.
3.80
This view was not shared by Ms Catriona Jackson, Chief Executive, Universities Australia, who stated:
I don't think you could reach those conclusions from the bill before us … I certainly can't see the potential for any of those things out of this bill.
3.81
The department also pointed to the technical nature of the amendment, noting it would take account of the new qualification type, which was created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It also highlighted the role of the COAG Education and Skills Councils in deciding whether it should continue beyond December 2021.
Protecting the term 'university' in domain names
3.82
There was general support for the proposal to require Ministerial approval of domain names using the word 'university' (or similar terms). For example, the Australian Technology Network of Universities endorsed extending protections for the term and noted that:
… university is an important and trusted mark of quality … and a signifier of research and teaching excellence, so it should be protected from misuse and dilution.
3.83
However, the Australian Catholic University argued there was a need for greater clarity in relation to how domain names registered overseas would be dealt with. This view was shared by Universities Australia, which argued that even stronger protections could be required. For example, it suggested that entities would still be able to register domain names that give the impression of being Australian universities by using global top-level domains (e.g. www.westernaustraliauniversity.com).
3.84
The department noted the provision would reinstate a policy and approval process that was suspended in 2017 due to changed legal interpretation. It stated that the reinstated policy and process would be consistent with government policy protecting the word 'university' in other legislation regulating company and business names.
3.85
The department also recognised the importance protecting the term 'university' given the broader use of the term in higher education provider names through the introduction of the ‘University College’ category.
Amending the Higher Education Support Act 2003
3.86
There was overwhelming support for the proposed change to replace references to 'Indigenous student' with 'Indigenous person', which would confirm that providers can use Indigenous student assistance grants to assist prospective Indigenous students as well as existing Indigenous students.
Committee View
3.87
The committee would like to thank all stakeholders for their engagement in this inquiry process. The committee also acknowledges the significant contribution of stakeholders to the HESP’s drafting of the proposed new provider category standards, as well as the PCS review that informed their development. Further, the committee understands that TEQSA will continue to engage with the higher education sector as it finalises the design and implementation of the proposed research quality provisions.
3.88
The committee notes the broad support for the bill, particularly those aspects that implement the recommendations arising from the 2016–17 impact review and the 2019 PCS review. There is also general support for the remaining provisions of the bill, which strengthen higher education regulation and amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to clarify the purposes for which Indigenous student assistance grants may be used.
3.89
The committee is aware of conflicting views in relation to the proposed new University College provider category. On balance, the committee accepts the argument that there are sufficient protections in place to prevent misuse of the term. The committee also notes that a similar category, the Australian University College, has been in existence since 2011.
3.90
Despite mixed views about the level of detail provided in the bill, the introduction of research quality benchmarks is strongly supported by stakeholders. However, the committee notes that the bill does not alter the existing balance of primary and delegated legislation in relation to the Threshold Standards. Given this, the committee endorses the view that the use of delegated legislation will allow the standards to be more responsive as circumstances evolve and change over time. The committee is also further reassured by TEQSA’s evident commitment to consultation—including with the HESP and other experts in the field of research evaluation.
3.91
Based on the evidence presented, the committee believes the risk of providers not meeting the research benchmarks is minimal, although it may be higher for smaller private universities. However, the committee is confident that the five and ten year transition periods will be sufficient to allow universities to adjust to the new requirements. It is also reassured by the department’s assertion that there will be scope for remedial action before any regulatory sanction might become necessary.
3.92
The committee also heard concerns about the interaction of the bill with broader changes to university research funding. While noting these concerns, the committee is mindful that work is already underway, via the Research Sustainability Working Group, to investigate sustainable approaches to university research funding. In the committee’s view, this process should be allowed to run its course.
3.93
In relation to the student records provision, the committee notes the potential privacy implications of proposed section 197AC, which will facilitate the transfer of student records from one entity to another where a student changes providers. While the Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights did not raise concerns about this provision, the government may wish to provide clarification about its operation to allay stakeholder concerns.
3.94
Overall, the committee believes the provisions in the bill will simplify and strengthen the regulatory framework for higher education in Australia. Accordingly, the committee recommends the bill be passed.
3.95
The committee recommends the bill be passed.
Senator the Hon James McGrath
Chair